Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

United States v. Fuller

United States District Court, E.D. Virginia, Richmond Division

July 28, 2016

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
JONATHAN FULLER, Petitioner.

          MEMORANDUM OPINION (DENYING 28 U.S.C. § 2255 MOTION)

          HENRY E. HUDSON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         Jonathan Fuller, a federal inmate proceeding pro se, submitted this motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence ("§ 2255 Motion, " ECF No. 41).[1] The Government has responded, asserting, inter alia, that Fuller's § 2255 Motion is barred by the statute of limitations. (ECF No. 45.) Fuller has filed a Reply. (ECF No. 47.) For the reasons set forth below, Fuller's § 2255 Motion will be dismissed as barred by the statute of limitations.

         I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

         On April 1, 2008, a grand jury charged Fuller with one count of possession with the intent to distribute five grams or more of a mixture and substance containing a detectable amount of cocaine base. (Indictment 1, ECF No. 1.) On June 30, 2008, Fuller pled guilty to the charge contained in the Indictment without the benefit of a Plea Agreement. On November 4, 2008, the Court entered judgment against Fuller and sentenced him to 160 months of incarceration. (J. 2, ECF No. 23 .)[2] On September 18, 2009, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed Fuller's conviction and sentence. United States v. Fuller, 332 F.App'x 879 (4th Cir. 2009).

         On November 12, 2013, Fuller placed the present § 2255 Motion in the prison mail system for mailing to this Court. (§ 2255 Mot. 18.) The Court deems the § 2255 Motion filed as of that date. See Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276 (1988). In his § 2255 Motion, Fuller asserts that he is entitled to resentencing in light of the Supreme Court's ruling in Alleyne v. United States, 133 S.Ct. 2151 (2013), (§ 2255 Mot. 1), because the Court "violated his Fifth Amendment and Sixth Amendment right by increasing his statutory mandatory minimum sentence for the drug offense based on improper judicial fact findings." (Id. at 3.) Specifically, Fuller contends that the Court "finding that he was responsible for 107 grams of cocaine base violated his Fifth and Sixth Amendment right to have any fact that triggers an enhanced mandatory minimum sentence charged in the indictment, submitted to a jury, and proven beyond a reasonable doubt...." (Id.)

         II. ANALYSIS

         Section 101 of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act ("AEDPA") amended 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to establish a one-year period of limitation for the filing of a § 2255 Motion. Specifically, 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f) now reads:

(f) A 1-year period of limitation shall apply to a motion under this section. The limitation period shall run from the latest of-
(1) the date on which the judgment of conviction becomes final;
(2) the date on which the impediment to making a motion created by governmental action in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States is removed, if the movant was prevented from making a motion by such governmental action;
(3) the date on which the right asserted was initially recognized by the Supreme Court, if that right has been newly recognized by the Supreme Court and made retroactively applicable to cases on collateral review; or
(4) the date on which the facts supporting the claim or claims presented could have been discovered through the exercise of due diligence.

28 U.S.C. § 2255(f).

         A. 28 U.S.C. ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.